Category: Uncategorized

I thought that this podcast was super interesting because they talked about theories, we have talked about in class but brought new perspectives that I had never really thought of before. What stuck out most to me was the idea that the great man theory really shows what people back then decided was important to focus on and record, and when we are going back and looking at women in history, we pick out those who have very similar traits as to those men who have been revered in history. This then gives us a false impression that there are only a few numbers of women doing things in history and the women in the podcast were talking about how important it is for us to broaden our criteria. I think that the newer approach to history that they were talking about, history from below or a people’s history, is a way that could improve the way we look at women in history.

One thing that shocked me that I had not realized, was the fact that the great man theory and the sexism that comes along with it has impacted facts that the collective people consider hard science. They were talking about how Charles Darwin’s theories about sexual and natural selection have a lot of gender biases in them- being that Darwin referenced women as “skirts”. Even though people have discredited the great man theory and think that they do not let it influence them in any way, things like Charles Darwin’s theories are still playing right into the great man theory and how the public thinks of women. This makes me think that it will be very hard for the world to escape the impact of the great man theory. At the end of the podcast the interview with Marilyn Ogilvie gives me hope because she discusses how she basically created a history of women in science that was not available at that time; and hopefully more people like her will tell the unheard stories of important women.

3 Comments

The idea of the Great Man Theory is that men, especially white men, have been the primary shapers of history and that they are superior in most ways and that they are the best leaders. There are so many things in history about women that are untold and left in the past. This made me think about when we were talking about MLK in class and we started talking about Rosa Parks. We all know Rosa Park’s name, but there was a woman(Claudette Colvin) who did what she is known for before Parks and nobody even knows her name. Both Parks and Claudette Colvin who is unrecognized should both be important historical figures in our textbooks. But because men were always the superior leaders, we mostly only know their names.

The feminists in this podcast want to put these unrecognized women in the spotlight as they should be. The accomplishments of women and minorities are silenced and put below the the things that the white man has done. It is going to be interesting to see when the Great Man Theory isn’t relavant anymore in the future.

6 Comments

I personally loved this podcast from Lady Science; I am a minor in Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, so it was very interesting to draw parallels between my two disciplines. I appreciated and agreed with the speakers on the podcast that “there is no room for women in the Great Man Theory,” and deciding the stories that should be told in history is arbitrary. In history classes since elementary school, we are ingrained with “stories” about [typically male] figures who have made some sort of influence. We have discussed this in class– who decides how we should tell history? Historians pick out what is “important” and who we decide to include in historical accounts, but the voices of women have been silenced unless they epitomize typically “masculine” leadership traits. For example, in the MLK articles we have read, the great strides made by Coretta Scott King in the Civil Rights Movement have been greatly silenced by historical accounts. The article we read from the professor completely discounted her work and MLK’s disloyalty to her as his experience, not her historical legacy.

I was also intrigued by the “HERStory” approach to studying history– telling history from a feminist point of view– because so much history is attributed to men. Instead of silencing the women who have made valuable contributions to society and crediting the majority to men, the feminist response is to uphold these women. Recognizing this issue from an intersectional lens allows consumers and students to understand the societal structures preventing women from elevating themselves. Lady Science uses the example of the lack of women in the STEM field today; through gender analysis, we see that women are pushed out of high-paying professionalized fields due to pay inequity, sexual harassment, and gender discrimination, so there are a limited number of women in the field. 

 

Anna Marston

1 Comment

In this episode, the hosts of Lady Science bring up several interesting points about the discussion of women in history, particularly in regards to the Great Man Theory. The hosts of our podcasts subscribed to a version of history very different than the Great Man Theory, believing that history is not shaped by the feats and leadership of an individual, rather it is shaped by larger movements in which class and gender play an increasingly large role. I really liked in the beginning when the hosts discussed the larger existential questions about the field of history, such as ‘what even is history”, “who decides which stories are told”, and “what stories do we not know?” The idea of history as a selection process leaves out a lot of information, and I think one way to explain this selection process is that our modern, more colloquial field of history is not the accurate rendition of factual information, but resembles somewhat more of an entertainment platform. Studies of great battles, deadly war, and powerful men are entertaining and are more widely known than the stories of smaller, marginalized communities. Great men in these stories have often been created into larger than life figures, men who wielded immense power and ushered in eras of serious change. These stories are entertaining, but they leave out many integral people and events that played a big role in human history. This also calls into question: how important does a person have to be to be a historical figure? What does “important” mean? Is there historical use in recording “the people’s history?” The work of more modern scholarship questions the real meaning of history and tries to tell the unknown stories of women and minorities that have not received as much attention.

The hosts also make a strong effort to not simply substitute a singular woman into the spotlight of the “Great Man Theory.” Their thinking is similar to some of the ideas we have discussed in class about how easy it is to attach an entire movement to a singular figurehead (like MLK and Civil Rights in the 60s). Due to our own human nature, we want to praise the achievements of a singular man or woman, rather than looking at the entire movement they were a part of and the people who helped them become so famous. Of course, this requires historians to delve much deeper into a time period by looking not just at the individual, but also at the environment and people who supported them. This is a contradiction of the Great Man Theory. I think it was interesting as well that the podcast hosts were so critical of substituting any well known woman in the place of the Great Man Theory, believing that this does not solve the issue. I am not quite sure as to why the hosts seem to expend so much energy fighting critics on Twitter, (people whose opinions will not change by a tweet) but they seem to be dedicated to the cause of unearthing gender and social movements that played a larger role in modern science than any one person ever could have.

2 Comments

Regardless of whether or not Charles I deserved to be executed, I was fascinated by the fact that he felt confident in the fact that he was destined to go to Heaven after his execution. A short paragraph in “The Trial and Execution of Charles I” stuck out to me because it was unlike the majority of the passage and other passages; it was not merely weighing the validity of his actions. It seems to me that it was almost as if Charles I was not even concerned with the justification or validity as long as he was going to be saved by going to Heaven. This is interesting to me because in modern day if leaders were to be assassinated or executed, many of them would be very concerned and focus most of their attention on the truthfulness and fairness of the reasoning behind their executions.

It would also make sense that during this time period the citizens would also be comforted by the notion that even if Charles I was wrongfully executed, at least he was going to go to Heaven. This could mean that they would potentially disregard the morality of the sentence because they felt so confident in the wildly unknown. Killing a leader even if he or she is likely a tyrant just because of the sureness of Heaven is not necessarily morally permissible. Thus, the concept of the punishment of an unjust leader being contingent on civilians’ faith in the possibility of an enchanted world and afterlife is very shocking to me. Conclusively, I was surprised to see that even Charles I thought that as long as Heaven was on the horizon, any consequence served for potentially being a poor leader was permissible.

6 Comments

Based on the two readings, I do believe that the execution of King Charles I was justified. Not solely based on his opposition to the parliament but do to his fundamentally flawed character. He did indeed say that he had the best intentions of his people in mind and strove for peace within his idea of a monarchy, but his flawed idea of divine rule was questionable in my opinion. Also, although I do respect his commitment to his conscience and honor, I believe that his actions were derived from uncharted territory in convincing his citizens based off his commitment to God.

Furthermore, although I do believe that Charles I should have been executed, I do not believe that the court proceedings were carried out in good faith. It clearly states in yesterday’s article, “Barely half of the men nominated to the High Court of Justice to try the king actually attended its proceedings.” It also refers to man man as having commited suicide later out of guilt. Both points attribute to my conception that the trial was corrupt. However, as I previously stated, I do believe that Charles I should have been executed, but only by due process as opposed to previous falsehoods and purges committed to the men sitting in parliament that day.

4 Comments

To be chosen by God to be a king, or to be the voice of God is a pretty far fetched idea. However, I find that it was rather common in earlier times when the church and state were not separate. Both Charles I and James established that they were an extension of God. This is a red flag when it comes to tyrannicide. This is not necessarily true in the church, but when a king has these ideals.

Charles I was truly a Tyrant. His ideals with God, and the manipulation he used to try and create a civil war. In addition he was using this to his own benefit. The speech he made before his execution ran along the lines of a narcissist. Narcissism and tyrannicide go hand in hand. With one you usually find the other.

5 Comments

Alright… King Charles I can definitely be labeled as a toxic leader for several reasons. Claiming he is the voice of god due to his “divine right” to the throne is always a red flag when looking back in history; an indicator of a singleminded, narcissistic leader. However, I still have strong opinions against the justification of executions. Life is so precious and executions are so permanent. The only possible case where an execution could be arguably partially understandable is if everyone on the high court strongly and definitively believed it, they had opinions of an outside impartial party supported it, and the leader was an unethical killer. However, this was not the case in the execution of Charles I for several reasons. The decision was not strongly supported and the parliament had been corrupted.

In one of the articles, the “Rump Parliament” is defined as members of the parliament who had remained after the purge of moderates in 1648. Basically, all the “pro-Charles” voices were forcibly removed. This “purging” members of the parliament or any group of lawmakers and legislators are always concerning to me. After readnig about the role the parliament played in the undoing of Charles I it was concerning to me giving that the lead-up and final decition of the execution were “reluctant” and “shambolic”. This corruption and onesidedness of the Parliment bring me to think of the lack of diversity we have today in the Supreme Court Judges. (GO RBG). Differences of opinion can be challenging to deal with if there is an agenda that needs to be agreed on but that is exactly why that diversity needs to be present in desition making. The articles mention of high court justices dieing or killing themselves after the execution furthers my standing on the injustice of execution. Taking a life is traumatic and inhumane and when it is not 100% justified (which I believe it never is) it can take a huge emotional toll on the individuals who contributed to the decision to execute.

I feel that there is always another option. Exile the king to an isolated island, put him in jail, whatever! Murder is so permanent. Taking a life is hard and often never unjustified. If we kill a leader that is the end of their story, there is no way to learn from them, no possibility for change. I dooo understand the possibility that their strongest supporters could cause a mutiny or form a cult in honor of the leader which could be dangerous but not as unjust as murder.

3 Comments

Wow. What an interesting historical story. Charles I is said to be made out to be this honourable and righteous man, “but it was this very sense of righteousness that was his undoing”. I see nothing righteous in a man or a king who takes attacks on his policy as an attack on him personally. Once I read that Charles was a man who thought he was a voice of God solely because of his “divine” right as king, I knew there was blood to come. Anyone with this sort of belief should not be in charge of anything, they are toxic to say the least.

As depicted in the articles, Charles I was truly “a man of blood” who had goals that took absolutely no consideration for the lives of the innocent. This man had the audacity to quite literally start a second civil war in the hopes of reclaiming the thrown. For this reason, I absolutely believe that he deserved to die. I see this man in the same light as John Wilkes Booth. Both of them attempted to reignite a civil war within their country as a part of the losing side, the only difference being that Booth failed to do so. And because Charles I efforts actually resulted in a second civil war, I believe his actions are worse than those of Booth.

And finally, because he refused to plea during the duration of his whole trial, I have absolutely no sympathy for this man who thuroughly believes he did nothing wrong. Charles I is a coward.

4 Comments

Toxic leadership is a subjective idea, but it gets more complicated when it relates to 17th century English society.  Though King Charles actions may have been tyrannical, his legacy paints him more as a man who stood up for his ideals.  One of the articles elaborates on this point when describing how, “Charles therefore managed to present himself as standing ‘more for the liberty of my people, than any here that come to be my pretended judges’, turning it into a piece of successful propaganda. Not only did it give him a chance to show the tyranny of the Rump Parliament but it allowed him to paint himself as the honourable, Christian protector of the constitution and of the people.” This speech was obviously a political play in order to ensure the future of the monarchy in England, but at the same time it portrays King Charles as a champion of the people and the Parliament as corrupt.  King Charles’ decision to essentially restart the civil war, causing thousands of deaths, may also have been justified in this context. This is because it not only ensures his, and future royals, rule over Parliament, but shows that his actions were done with the people in mind. I am unsure of King Charles’ leadership because though he firmly believes what he did was necessary to protect the liberties of all English people, his decisions to protect that freedom indirectly caused the deaths of many of those people. In the case of King Charles, I believe intent matters. The readings do attack some of Charles’ actions, but they do clearly highlight his belief that he is doing the right thing for him, the people, and England as a whole.  For all of these reasons, King Charles’ reign should not be classified as a case of toxic leadership, rather misguided ethics or beliefs.

4 Comments

In determining whether or not King Charles deserved to be executed it is important to examine the events leading up to his execution. Most important to note is the fact that Charles I betrayed his followers and the members of Parliament after losing the English Civil War in 1646. Despite the thought that Charles might’ve lost his supporters, the people had no malice thoughts about him as a leader and still respected him even after losing the Civil War. By joining with the Scottish forces in an attempt to invade England, Charles committed treason. He did it in an attempt to gain back the throne, but there was no need to go to that extent. By this, there was no valid reason for Charles to attempt an invasion and he did deserve executed.

On another note, it is essential to understand that King Charles I was honorable with a strong sense of right and wrong. As a leader, he was respectful and loyal to his followers. However, he had a habit of escalating altercations with his enemies. Whenever there was a small challenge it would be escalated because of the attitude that he possessed. This quality is part of what pushed him to unite with the Scottish forces. Unfortunately, his pride got ahead of him and led him to be executed.

 

 

4 Comments

I think the question of whether Charles I deserved to be executed is an interesting one. I can’t think of many leaders in which the answer is ambivalent. However, Charles I’s execution is a gray area because he became a martyr, a figurehead for The Time Parliament Went Too Far (probably a saga) and paved the way for his son Charles II who successfully ruled England, Scotland, and Ireland. However, his father was beheaded and, even in the 1600s, I think that’s excessive. Of course, according to the Jacobian Theory of Kingship, Parliament was defying God, so from that point of view, it’s clearly wrong. Jacobian Theory states that even a tyrant cannot be removed/invalidated by Parliament or the people; the king can only be removed by God. And while that concept is ridiculous and, like Carroll said is “virtually a synonym for ‘tyranny.” I kind of see the reason for such an approach after somewhat removing myself from my democratic ideals.

Yes, Charles I went behind his country’s back to recruit the Scottish so he could get his throne back, but killing a king without public support? Isn’t that just worsening the instability? When dealing with a figurehead that was not elected, nor is susceptible to election, shouldn’t the law be taken with a grain of salt? I mean, we are talking bloodlines and divine right here. If you just start killing leaders when they screw up, that system will come into question (and, as we know, it has). I really don’t like to think any leader is above the law, but I am American and a King is not synonymous with President. Cromwell or no Cromwell, I don’t think Ragtag Rump Parliament had the right to do what they did, and it seems like the country felt the same way.

4 Comments

After reading the articles I have mixed emotions towards the execution of King Charles I. One of the reasons why I feel that his execution is justifiable is because it is the 17th century rather than modern day and their viewpoints are completely different than today. After losing the first Civil War he was extremely embarrassed and made a secret pact with Scottish forces to place him back on the throne by force. Rather than working out a deal with Parliament he decided to backstab Parliament with the pact between him and the Scotts. Thousands of British soldiers had perished after this first Civil War and he purposely started a second one to regain the throne. As the article The Trial and Execution of Charles I says “He was a man of blood who sacrificed innocents and went against God’s providence. For those reasons stated above that is why I believe his execution was justifiable.  

 The reason why I am against his execution is because “No monarch ever left the world with more sorrow: women miscarried, men fell into melancholy(uk.tv.co).” The fact that a king was executed brought so much sorrow and despair upon the country. In addition, as stated in The Trial and Execution of Charles I “Many Parliamentarians did not want to execute Charles.” Also after he was beheaded the crowd released a sad moan, the executioner went against against tradition and did not raise the kings head and say the famous coined phrase. Soon after his head was sewn back upon his body and his execution was listed as martyr status.   

4 Comments

Charles I was known as a very stubborn leader. He made bad decisions in difficult situations and also got into disagreements with other powerful men. He seemed to be gracious and loyal only when he wanted to which caused problems. Charles showed time after time that he could not be trusted.

Although Charles I had tyranny behaviors, I do not believe he was a tyrant leader. He was not a good leader and could not be trusted but in the end he didn’t deserve to die, in my opinion. Yes, he was an awful leader but there have been bad leaders in the past and will continue in the future. I also found interesting that he died in what he believed in. He did not want to take the plea deal and I think that showed the public a positive side to him. I think by killing Charles he became more famous and known by the public.

4 Comments

Although I think that King Charles was very stubborn and let his personal decisions get in the way of his thought process, I believe that Charles did not deserve to die, but argue that his death actually helped his legacy. I think that while Charles backstabbed the Parliament and other members of the government, he was not a tyrant. Yes, he had tyrannical behaviors, but was not thinking of himself at every given second. I think that this is seen during his trial, as it is heavily debated and if he were truly that horrible, there would’ve been no problem killing him immediately. In addition, he was not the first ruler during this time to have selfish motivations, and not the worst the world could’ve had. I also think that they ruled to kill him in a political effort to “win” against King Charles as he publicly put up such a fight. 

While I believe that Charles did not need to be killed, I actually believe it helped the public to see him in a more positive light, as it looked like he was dying for a cause he believed in. King Charles did not need to be executed, and could’ve easily argued his way out of it in the years between the war ending and his actual death. But, I think that part of his appeal is that he died, and the words that he gave before his death. Therefore, in this situation, I not only think that choosing to kill him was the wrong decision, but I think that it helped give Charles fame.

2 Comments